Introduzione a Grasshopper", il primo manuale su Grasshopper.
.
I corsi PLUG IT nascono dalla volontà di promuovere le nuove tecnologie digitali di supporto alla progettazione e condividere il know-how maturato attraverso ricerca, collaborazione con i più importanti studi di architettura e pubblicazioni internazionali.
.
Verranno introdotte le nozioni base di Grasshopper approfondendo le metodologie della progettazione parametrica e le tecniche di modellazione algoritmica per la generazione di forme complesse. Il corso è rivolto a studenti e professionisti con esperienza minima nella modellazione 3D e si articolerà in lezioni teoriche ed esercitazioni.
. Argomenti trattati:
- Introduzione alla progettazione parametrica: teoria, esempi, casi studio - Grasshopper: concetti base, logica algoritmica, interfaccia grafica - Nozioni fondamentali: componenti, connessioni, data flow
- Funzioni matematiche e logiche, serie, gestione dei dati - Analisi e definizione di curve e superfici
- Definizione di griglie e pattern complessi - Trasformazioni geometriche, paneling - Attrattori, image sampler
- Data tree: gestione di dati complessi - Digital fabrication: teoria ed esempi - Nesting: scomposizione di oggetti tridimensionali in sezioni piane per macchine CNC
.
Verrà rilasciato un attestato finale.
.
Ulteriori info e programma completo su: www.arturotedeschi.com e su www.samilolab.it…
greatly appreciate it!!
You can write the number of the question and write your answer next to it, example:
1) a
2) c
3) a) Washington University in St. Louis
4) 2 weeks (1week+1week shipping)
5) 130
6) b
7) b
The survey questions are as follows:
1)
Did you 3D print before?
5)
How much did it cost (in dollars)?
a.
Yes, for a school project
a.
Between 20 & 50
b.
Yes, for a personal project
b.
Between 50 & 80
c.
Between 80 & 120
2)
Print size
d.
Please specify if otherwise: _____ dollars
a.
Between 2 & 6 cubic inches
b.
Between 6 & 12 cubic inches
6)
Do you think the price was expensive?
c.
Between 12 & 20 cubic inches
a.
Not at all
d.
Please specify if otherwise: ____cubic inches
b.
A little bit expensive
c.
Very expensive
3)
Where did you print your object?
a.
School
7)
Were you satisfied with the printed object?
b.
Outside school: _________________
a.
Yes, it was a great print without problems
b.
Not bad, some issues
4)
How long did it take to print?
c.
I was not satisfied, very bad quality
a.
___ days
b.
___ weeks
Thank you very much to all!!
PS: If you did many 3D prints, you can post multiple answers.
Wassef…
whole design intent, but this is what Inventor is good at. The way it packages bits of 'scripted' components into 'little models' that can be stored and re-assembled is central to MCAD working.
The Inventor model shown is almost 5 years old. We don't model like that any more, however it does offer a good idea of general MCAD modeling approaches.
iParts is useful in certain situations, it could've been useful in the above model, its usefulness is often in function of the quantity of variants/configurations.
So much is scripted in GH, maybe it should also be possible to script/define/constrain/assist the placement/gluing of the results?
...
Starting point: I think we are talking across purposes. AFAIK, the solving sequence of GH's scripted components is fixed. It won't do circular dependencies... without a fight. The inter-component dependencies not 'managed' like constraints solvers do for MCAD apps.
Components and assemblies are individual files in MCAD.
Placement of these within assemblies in MCAD is a product of matrix transforms and persistent constraints. There is no bi-directional link, the link is unidirectional (downflow only), because of the use of proxies.
Consequently, scripting the placement of components is irrelevant in GH, unless you decide that each component needs to be contained in its own separate file.
This also brings up the point that generating components and assemblies in MCAD is not as straightforward. In iParts and iAssemblies, each configuration needs to be generated as a "child" (the individual file needs to be created for each child) before those children can be used elsewhere.
You notice the dilemma, if you generate 100 parts, and then you realize you only need 20, you've created 80 extra parts which you have no need for, thus generating wasteful data that may cause file management issues later on.
GH remains in a transient world, and when you decide to bake geometry (if you need to at all), you can do that in one Rhino file, and save it as the state of the design at that given moment. Very convenient for design, though unacceptable for most non-digital manufacturing methods, which greatly limits Rhino's use for manufacturing unless you combine it with an MCAD app.
One of the reasons why the distributed file approach makes perfect sense in MCAD, is that in industry you deal with a finite set of objects. Generative tools are usually not a requirement. Most mechanical engineers, product engineers and machinists would never have any use for that.
The other thing that MCAD apps like Inventor have, is the 'structured' interface that offers up all that setting out information like the coordinate systems, work planes, parameters etc in a concise fashion in the 'history tree'. This will translate into user speed. GH's canvas is a bit more freeform. I suppose the info is all there and linked, so a bit of re-jigging is easy. Also, see how T-Flex can even embed sliders and other parameter input boxes into the model itself. Pretty handy/fast to understand, which also means more speed.
True. As long as you keep the browser pane/specification tree organized and easy to query.
:)
Would love to understand what you did by sketching.
I'll start by showing what was done years ago in the Inventor model, and then share with you what I did in GH, but in another post.
Let's use one of the beams as an example:
We can isolate this component for clarity.
Notice that I've highlighted the sectional sketch with dimensions, and the point of reference, which is in relation to the CL of the column which the beam bears on. The orientation and location of the beam is already set by underlying geometry.
Here's a perspective view of the same:
The extent of the beam was also driven by reference geometry, 2 planes offset from the beam's XY plane, driven by parameters from another underlying file which serves as a parameter container:
Reference axes and points are present for all other components, here are some of them:
It starts getting cluttered if you see the reference planes as well:
Is I mentioned earlier, over time we've found better ways to define and associate geometry, parameters, manage design change, improving the efficiency of parametric models. But this model is a fair representation of a basic modeling approach, and since an Inventor-GH comparison is like comparing apples and oranges anyways, this model can be used to understand the differences and similarities, for those interested.
I haven't even gotten to your latest post yet, I will eventually.…
Added by Santiago Diaz at 10:36am on February 26, 2011
s levels of detail by subdividing a 6 sided cube mesh and projecting its vertices according to a referenced height map. This is one of the standard conventions for building full sizes planets. At the lowest level (0) the mesh planet is made of 6 pieces(each 32x32 resolution). The next level down (1) is made of 24 pieces... 6 divided by 4 = 24. Level (2) is 96 quads etc etc. The script will generate each quad at its sub-division level and compare edge vertices to neighboring quads. It will then make sure any shared vertices are in fact at the same projected vector. This ensures a planet quad with edge vertices that match.
The problems comes in texturing each quad.
If I build the quad as a nurb surface from points I can place the texture easily because each surface UV maps squarely to my texture map (which is also square).
If I build the quad as a mesh I cannot just apply the square texture to the mesh UVs. This is because when you unwrap the UVs from a mesh they will not unwrap like a nurb surface's UVs. Therefore to get the correct mapping I would have to manipulate each UV back to an evenly aligned array (which is 1024 points in a 32x32 resolution UV). Maya and blender have 'relax uv' and 'align UV' functions but they don't do the trick and manual corrections are out of the question. So why not skip the mesh method and use the nurb method?
I did this and there is a trade off. The nurb will accept the material texture I want with no other work on my end but when I export the object as an .obj rhino creates its own mesh to describe the nurb(with various unsatisfactory setting options). This works great up to a point because at some level the interpreted mesh will have vertices that do no match at the edges, ie .. creating visible seams in the mesh. The picture below is the nearly seamless planet at LOD(1) made of 24 quads, each with 32x32 vertice resolution and a 512x512 jpg texture running in Unity3d 5. It works but at close level there are seams. This will be resolved simply by having the next LOD(x) instantiate before getting close enough to see the seam but at core nerd level I want the seamless mesh.
So, I can make the seamless mesh but I can not realistically texture map it. I can also make the nurb surface from points and texture it at the expense of the edge vertices matching. I am at the split in the road but I want to have my cake and eat it too. Thoughts, comments, trolls...?
Thanks for reading =)
Footnote: For you pros I am not using seamless noise across the map I am using grasshopper to sew up my otherwise non perfect edges.
Other programs in the pipeline:
-WorldMachine 2
-Wilbur
-Photoshop
-Unity3d…
o Common - just like C#. But Rhino Python has a "Scripting Language Wrapper" which breaks commonly used taks down to simpler functions.
Here's a general Example:
Take a look at the code on this website http://wiki.mcneel.com/developer/rhinocommonsamples/addline). Generally it's Rhino Common code in three language to create a line. They look equally difficult.
But if you use Rhino Python Scripting you can use an simplified syntax to get the same result. It's very similar to Rhino Script.
The code would be:
import rhinoscriptsyntax as rsstart_point = rs.GetPoint("Get start point")end_point = rs.GetPoint("Get end point")line_id = rs.AddLine(start_point, end_point)
OK - No Error Tracking here, but still you can see that the syntax is much simpler. (And in the end you just have less lines of code you have to debug.
And the good thing about Rhino Python is, that you can mix these approaches. Once you reach a level where Rhino Python Script doesn't get you there, which by the way happens very rarely, you can still use the Rhino Common methods.
Also, in Python Sycripting 99% of what you probably would like to do is available as a "wrapped" script function.
Rhino Python Script is currently also better documented than Rhino Common for C# and VB.Net. If you have used Rhino VB Script before, these functions will be very familar to you.
I'm not sure, why it's currently a separate plug-in. I belive the reason is that Rhino 4 (which is supported by GH) doesn't support Rhino Python. Also it's currently WIP, so it needed to be updated more frequently than GH itself. In the long run (I believe) it might be integrated into GH as a general component
- Martin
P.S.: To use Rhino Python within GH is a little more tricky than my example - but nothing compared to developing C#
P.S.2 Here's the code with Error Tracking:
import rhinoscriptsyntax as rsdef AddLine(): start_point = rs.GetPoint("Get start point") if start_point is None: print "No start point was selected" return end_point = rs.GetPoint("Get end point") if end_point is None: print "No end point was selected" return line_id = rs.AddLine(start_point, end_point) return line_idAddLine()
…
rves/holes. However, the Kangaroo script itself is prone to locking up so it seems like it might take forever. You can even double click stop the timer from the Windows task bar, I hadn't noticed that before:
You have to use that or right click disable the timer since even with the Reset toggle button input set to True the timer itself locks up the script a bit when you are changing things around.
Just setting the min/max numbers both to a desired mesh size gives a uniform mesh:
Oh weird, it's about if the timer is right click set to so small an interval that it gets ahead of Kangaroo! When you see how long each cycle is taking with the Display > Canvas Widgets > Profiler you just set the timer for above that and the interface comes back into being responsive. It only takes a few Kangaroo cycles to do the inflation, so a full second timer interval is even workable.
A finer mesh:
It's funny running it so slow since it overinflates at first, bulging out, before it equilibrates.
You have control over inflation pressure and mesh stiffness, for a variety of effects.
This is a good system once I realized the timer needed to be mellowed out.
What made it work was the fast custom meshing since a normal mesh is awful and MeshMachine wouldn't work with sharp corner holes at all, breaking out of the boundary even if I fixed curves or vertices or did the equivalent with NURBS surfaces instead of a starting mesh.
There is an initiation time for Kangaroo that doesn't show up on its Profiler time that happens even with the timer off.
There are some fine areas that can't inflate with a reasonable mesh setting:
Worth playing with but no match for ArtCAM since it suffers odd delays in between working fast. If I could get better 2D meshes, that were more adaptive it would be better, but MeshMachine is one of the only re-meshers I know and it's broken for even mildly sharp hole features.
Ah, how about a crude mesh that is then subdivided, guaranteeing inner vertices everywhere? Sort of works, but is still too dense. Way too dense to even do anything. The subdivision triangulates the quads, vastly increasing the mesh wire density. Better just to make a finer initial mesh with plenty of quads.…
Added by Nik Willmore at 12:57am on February 21, 2016
, Engineer and Researcher from France with broad programming experience. He is the author of the City in 3D Rhinoceros plugin for creation of buildings according to geojson file and with real elevation. Guillaume already created a new component: "Address to Location". It enables getting latitude and longitude values for the given address:
2) Support of Bathymetry data: automatic creation of underwater (sea/river/lake floor) terrain. This feature is now available through new source_ input of the "Terrain generator" component. Here is an example of terrain of the Loihi underwater volcano, of the coast of Hawaii:
3) A new terrain source has been added: ALOS World 3D 30m. ALOS is a Japanese global terrain data. Gismo "Terrain Generator" component has been using SRTM 30m terrain data, which hasn't been global and was limited to -56 to +60 latitude range. With this addition, it is possible to switch between SRTM and ALOS World 3D 30m models with the use of source_ input.
4) 9 new components have been added:
"Address To Location" - finds latitude and longitude coordinates for the given address.
"XY To Location" - finds latitude and longitude coordinates for the given Rhino XY coordinates. "Location To XY" - vice versa from the previous component: finds Rhino XY coordinates for the given latitude longitude coordinates. "Z To Elevation" - finds elevation for particular Rhino point. "Rhino text to number" - convert numeric text from Rhino to grasshopper number. "Rhino unit to meters" - convert Rhino units to meters. "Deconstruct location" - deconstructs .epw location. "New Component Example" - this component explains how to make a new Gismo component, in case you are interested to make one. We welcome new developers, even if you contribute a single component to Gismo! "Support Gismo" - gives some suggestions on how to make Gismo better, how to improve it and support it.
5) Ladybug "Terrain Generator" component now supports all units, not only Meters. So any Gismo example file which uses this component, can now use Rhino units other than Meters as well. Thank you Antonello Di Nunzio for making this happen!!
Basically just forget about this yellow panel:
This panel is not valid anymore, so just use any unit you want.
6) A number of bugs have been fixed, reported in topics for the last couple of weeks. We would like to thank members in the community who invested their time in testing, finding these bugs and reporting them: Rafat Ahmed, Peter Zatko, Mathieu Venot, Abraham Yezioro, Rafael Alonso. Thank you guys!!! Apologies if we forgot to mention someone.
The version 0.0.2 can be downloaded from here:
https://github.com/stgeorges/gismo/zipball/master
And example files from here:
https://github.com/stgeorges/gismo/tree/master/examples
Any new suggestions, testing and bug reports are welcome!!…
Added by djordje to Gismo at 5:13pm on March 1, 2017
y using the Honeybee_Update Honeybee component.
The video below (best viewed in full-screen mode) provides an idea of what these components are capable of being used for:
The video below shows how these components can be used in an existing Honeybee project (for additional links please open this video in youtube):
I have uploaded two examples as Hydra files that show how these components can be used for grid-point and image-based simulations:
Example1 : Grid Point Calculations
Example2: Image based simulation
Finally, a more esoteric application is demonstrated in this video:
These components are still in the beta-testing stage. Some of the limitations of the components are:
1. Only Type C photometry IES files are supported at present.
2. Rhino is likely to get sluggish if there are too many luminaires (i.e. light fixtures) present in a scene.
3. Due to the spectral limitations of the ray-tracing software (RADIANCE), simulations involving color mixing might not be physically realizable.
Additional details about photometric and spectral calculations are probably an overkill for this forum. However, I'd be glad to answer any related questions. Please report any bugs or request new features either on this forum or on Github.
Mostapha, Leland Curtis, Reinhardt Swart and Dr. Richard Mistrick provided valuable inputs during the development of these components.
Thanks,
Sarith
Update 16th January 2017:
An example with some new components and bug fixes since the initial release announcement can be found here
…
ay how many valid permutations exist.
But allow me to guesstimate a number for 20 components (no more, no less). Here are my starting assumptions:
Let's say the average input and output parameter count of any component is 2. So we have 20 components, each with 2 inputs and 2 outputs.
There are roughly 35 types of parameter, so the odds of connecting two parameters at random that have the same type are roughly 3%. However there are many conversions defined and often you want a parameter of type A to seed a parameter of type B. So let's say that 10% of random connections are in fact valid. (This assumption ignores the obvious fact that certain parameters (number, point, vector) are far more common than others, so the odds of connecting identical types are actually much higher than 3%)
Now even when data can be shared between two parameters, that doesn't mean that hooking them up will result in a valid operation (let's ignore for the time being that the far majority of combinations that are valid are also bullshit). So let's say that even when we manage to pick two parameters that can communicate, the odds of us ending up with a valid component combo are still only 1 in 2.
We will limit ourselves to only single connections between parameters. At no point will a single parameter seed more than one recipient and at no point will any parameter have more than one source. We do allow for parameters which do not share or receive data.
So let's start by creating the total number of permutations that are possible simply by positioning all 20 components from left to right. This is important because we're not allowed to make wires go from right to left. The left most component can be any one of 20. So we have 20 possible permutations for the first one. Then for each of those we have 19 options to fill the second-left-most slot. 20×19×18×17×...×3×2×1 = 20! ~2.5×1018.
We can now start drawing wires from the output of component #1 to the inputs of any of the other components. We can choose to share no outputs, output #1, output #2 or both with any of the downstream components (19 of them, with two inputs each). That's 2×(19×2) + (19×2)×(19×2-1) ~ 1500 possible connections we can make for the outputs of the first component. The second component is very similar, but it only has 18 possible targets and some of the inputs will already have been used. So now we have 2×(18×2-1) + (18×2-1)×(18×2-1) ~1300. If we very roughly (not to mention very incorrectly, but I'm too tired to do the math properly) extrapolate to the other 18 components where the number of possible connections decreases in a similar fashion thoughout, we end up with a total number of 1500×1300×1140×1007×891×789×697×...×83×51×24×1 which is roughly 6.5×1050. However note that only 10% of these wires connect compatible parameters and only 50% of those will connect compatible components. So the number of valid connections we can make is roughly 3×1049.
All we have to do now is multiply the total number of valid connection per permutation with the total number of possible permutations; 20! × 3×1049 which comes to 7×1067 or 72 unvigintillion as Wolfram|Alpha tells me.
Impressive as these numbers sound, remember that by far the most of these permutations result in utter nonsense. Nonsense that produces a result, but not a meaningful one.
EDIT: This computation is way off, see this response for an improved estimate.
--
David Rutten
david@mcneel.com
Poprad, Slovakia…
Added by David Rutten at 12:06pm on March 15, 2013
try now to integrate Geco in an interdisciplinary architectural engineering studio: hoping we can show you some nice applications of your tool, I'll keep you update and sending now details by e-mail. Here the file (very welcome to be shared). It most probably contais trivial errors by me, thanks for helping and giving some tip! Gr. Michela
FILE:
Ok, right, I see the outputs update correctly. Origin of problems must be in some different mistake I do:
- Incident radiation: I am not sure I understand what is going on: why I get so many 'not a number' ? (The Galapagos report is full of NaNs).
Bio-Diversity: 0.887 Genome[0], Fitness=NaN, Genes [89% · 44%] { Record: Too many fitness values supplied } ...
Genome[7], Fitness=NaN, Genes [74%] { Record: No fitness value was supplied } ....
Genome[9], Fitness=NaN, Genes [37% · 11%] { Record: Genome was mutated to avoid collision Record: Too many fitness values supplied }
- Daylight calculations: the geometry accumulates withouth deleting the previous models. As a consequance, results almost do not change after few varations (so, outputs get updated but do not vary). In current daylight definition: the first object being imported is the one where the grid has to fit; its setting makes it cancelling all the other objects during import. All the others, do not delete anything when imported. When running loops (manual or GA) that vary parameters, the entire geometry do not get cancelled - so I guess the loop does not pass back by the cancelling step, but imports only the geometry which has been varied by the parameters using the setting of that import component only? I will then try again by changing the order of the operations, but if you have specfic tips, let me know.
THANKS!
…